History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum Lockedoriginal inhabitants of ancient England

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 10>
Author
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 407
Post Options Post Options   Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: original inhabitants of ancient England
    Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 03:09
 
They were the Celtic-speaking " Romano-Britons " before the arrival of Anglo-Saxon Germanic tribes.
 
Me and many of you surely have read more than enough of how Anglo-Saxon or Germanic the English are blah blah blah ... lol.I want to know what happened to those natives,wiped out or absorbed by the invading conquests ? Roughly what percentage of modern day English gene pool can trace to England's indigenous people ? I am aware of Viking & Norman components,surname suffix ending " sen " or " son " most likely has Viking ancestry.
 
 


Edited by pebbles - 15-Feb-2009 at 16:12
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 12:30

Nobody really knows ... it varies from area to area but there's a big debate on to what extent Anglo-Saxons actually replaced natives. There does appear to be a line in the western part of England (beyond which lies Wales, Cornwall, Devon, Shropshire etc) after which Saxon influence seems to drop sharply.

But there is genetic continuity throughout England with the very earliest inhabitants as well, as seen for instance in the case of Cheddar Man, a 9000 year old body that was discovered and genetically tested. Results were compared to a local history class of 20-odd children and their teacher: it so happened that the teacher was a close match, and two of the children were direct descendants!

Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 407
Post Options Post Options   Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 16:42
Originally posted by edgewaters

Nobody really knows ... it varies from area to area but there's a big debate on to what extent Anglo-Saxons actually replaced natives.

But there is genetic continuity throughout England with the very earliest inhabitants as well, as seen for instance in the case of Cheddar Man, a 9000 year old body that was discovered and genetically tested. Results were compared to a local history class of 20-odd children and their teacher: it so happened that the teacher was a close match, and two of the children were direct descendants!

 
The Anglo Saxon chronicle probably glossed up some historic facts.I say those Germanic tribes became a powerful force that united England and installed themselves as ruling class with many indigenous tribes remain intact except the ones ( known as Breton people ) left to settled in Brittany ( France ).
 
 
 
Isn't it safe to assume English ( exclude Celtic component ) are distant cousins of today's Germans and Scandinavians ( mainly the Danes Norwegians Swedes ) ?
 
 
Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 407
Post Options Post Options   Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 16:57
 
They are often believed to be a mixture of several closely related groups that have settled in what became England, such as the Brythons (including Romano-Britons), Angles, Saxons, Norse Vikings and Normans.
 
However, recent DNA analysis suggest that the majority of the ancestors of British peoples were the original paleolithic settlers of Great Britain, and that the differences that exist between the east and west coasts of Great Britain though not large, are deep in prehistory, mostly originating in the upper paleolithic and mesolithic (15,000-7,000 years ago).
 
 
 
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 552
Post Options Post Options   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 23:06

We discussed this e.g. in the thread "Anglo Saxons" (Medieval history).

Especially Reginmund and me discussed about an expulsion of Britons or an absorption.

There are two main streams. One believes that the Anglo-Saxons wiped the Britons out or at least expelled them to Wales and Cornwall. The other group believes that the Anglo-Saxons were a little ruling elite that absorpted the Britons.

Since a couple of years we have also the possibility the compare genetic material. I am not a specialist here. I  have heard here two main opinions too. The one that says that the genetic material is close to the Germanic areas of modern Germany/Netherland and Skandinavia and another one that says that the British people can be linked to much older groups.

I am convinced that we can find both genetical material. The genes that seem to come from the Netherlands, Belgium, NorthEast France and Germany are linked with he Anglo-Saxon invaders. Yes, sure that is correct. But since the LaTene era we have a Celtic migratioon from these areas as well. So I am not sure that all these genetic markers are Germanic.

The germanic regions where the Anglo-Saxons came from were depopulated since the middle of the 5th century. But not completely. There was a lot of population left. So the Anglo-Saxons never had the great amount of population that was able to expell or wipe out the Britons. The Anglo-Saxons needed more than 200 years to beat the Britons. And if we look to the British history there was no especially fight between Anglo-Saxon invaders and British Defenders. It was a time of war between different British kingdoms, of war between different Anglo-Saxons kings, of war between Britons and Anglo-Saxons. Anglo-Saxons fought as mercenaries for British kings and Britons fought for Anglo-saxon kings. So where was these Anglo-Saxon system of Apartheid that some believe it had exist?
Another fact is that we speak of Anglo-Saxons. Yes, we can use this term, but it is not the term for a single nation. Three nations are said to have invaded Britain, the Angles, the Saxons and the Iutes. It is true, there were Angles among the invaders and Iutes, but the term Saxons is as well not a term for a single nation but for pirating northwest germanic groups. So the so-called Anglo-Saxons are a polyethnic population. We can only speak of an Anglo-Saxon nation just at its end, when the Vikings invaded Britain. So I can't see why they should have wiped out or expelled the Britons.
If we speak of the Britons we can't speak of an heterogene population to. Before the Roman conquest we have different groups in Britannia. We have Belgians (the latest invasion), Celts from the Marne region, we have so-called Q-Celts and we have pre-Celtic groups too that reached a different stage of celtification. In Scotland and Ireland we had groups that were much longer inhabitants than the Celts or others. So it is hard to speak of original inhabitants.
Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 407
Post Options Post Options   Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 00:25
 
Thanks for your input.
 
This past day since started this thread,I now realized the term Anglo-Saxons has been excessively promoted & used.
 
I recently reconnected with a few White-American 6th grade schoolmates from rural Kansas at classmates.com.Their surnames ( Berry/Williams/Barker/Hood/Shank/Hendrix/Kuhn ) brought back memory of my newphew ( born & raised there ) once said to me that local kids generally aware of their heritage,usually identify to be of Anglo-Saxon stock.Do these families really trace ancestral roots to those Germanic tribes or they're indoctrinated by the concept of English are basically from Anglox-Saxon lineages  ?!
 
 
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 552
Post Options Post Options   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 11:31
I hope I understand you correct! Well, Kuhn is for sure a German name, not Anglo-Saxon.
Different regions have different names. So a lot of Skandinavians have name that end of -son or -sen. But e.g. even in North Germany it was a mode. I didn't care for English names, but I think one can see if a name has an Anglo-Saxon origin or a Normannic origin. Exept of the Mc's and O's I don't know if there are celtic names existing, sorry. But I am not sure if an Anglo-Saxon name means that one is 100% Anglo-saxon. A child has always two parents. So how Anglo-saxon is a person with an Anglo-Saxon name. The male lineage is perhaps Anglo-Saxon but we can't say more. Another fact is that Britons could use Anglo-Saxon names. So in that situation we can't say an Anglo-saxon names stand for an unbroken Anglo-Saxon male lineage. In Germany there are Latin family names. These people aren't neither Italian nor have Roman ancestor (as far as we know). Once ago a ancestor thought a Latin name would sound more noble. So they changed it. That's all. There are a lot of Slavic names, too. But in many cases, the male lineage just used a former Slavic place name for there family. So they are in the male line Germanic but have a Slavic name. The most people I know, exept of noble families, can trace their families far back than to the 18th century. Well, in England the sources are better, so that a lot of families find their names in medieval sources. But I don't know if they are really related with those persons. I heard that every O'Neil believes that he is a descendant of the royal Ui Niall or that every McDonald or McAlpine believe that he is a descendant of those former kings. But I am sur this is often mor fiction than reality. It is perhaps the same with recent Anglo-Saxon traditions.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3963
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 12:44
According to almost all English sources, like "The Anglo Saxon chronicle" that you mentioned http://omacl.org/Anglo/part1.html : "The first inhabitants were the Britons, who came from Armenia, and first peopled Britain southward.  Then happened it, that the Picts came south from Scythia, with long ships, not many; and, landing first in the northern part of Ireland."
 
Numerous evidences prove this fact, especially linguistic evidences, there are even several genetic evidences which confirm it, for example the famous Greek historian Herodotus (ca. 450B.C.) says about Scythians ("Scothes" in Greek, the same word in Latin was used for Scots): "They are a large and powerful nation: they have all blue eyes, and red hair" (Herodotus, Histories 4. 108)
 
 
Redheads constitute approximately four percent of the European population.[7] Scotland has the highest proportion of redheads, as 13 percent of the population has red hair and approximately 40 percent carries the recessive redhead gene.[8] Ireland has the second highest percentage; as many as 10 percent of the Irish population have red, auburn, or strawberry blond hair.[9] It is thought that up to 46 percent of the Irish population carries the recessive redhead gene. Red hair reaches frequencies of up to 10 percent in Wales.[10] In England, the county of Cornwall, the far north, near the Scottish border, and the counties of Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire also have significant proportions of redheads.
 
 
It is interesting to read about red-haired mummies which were found in the northwest of Iran (southern Armenia) in BBC Oxford: http://www.bbc.co.uk/oxford/content/articles/2005/10/04/saltman.shtml
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379
Post Options Post Options   Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 13:17
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

According to almost all English sources, like "The Anglo Saxon chronicle" that you mentioned http://omacl.org/Anglo/part1.html : "The first inhabitants were the Britons, who came from Armenia, and first peopled Britain southward.  Then happened it, that the Picts came south from Scythia, with long ships, not many; and, landing first in the northern part of Ireland."
 
Numerous evidences prove this fact, especially linguistic evidences, there are even several genetic evidences which confirm it, for example the famous Greek historian Herodotus (ca. 450B.C.) says about Scythians ("Scothes" in Greek, the same word in Latin was used for Scots): "They are a large and powerful nation: they have all blue eyes, and red hair" (Herodotus, Histories 4. 108)
 
 
Redheads constitute approximately four percent of the European population.[7] Scotland has the highest proportion of redheads, as 13 percent of the population has red hair and approximately 40 percent carries the recessive redhead gene.[8] Ireland has the second highest percentage; as many as 10 percent of the Irish population have red, auburn, or strawberry blond hair.[9] It is thought that up to 46 percent of the Irish population carries the recessive redhead gene. Red hair reaches frequencies of up to 10 percent in Wales.[10] In England, the county of Cornwall, the far north, near the Scottish border, and the counties of Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire also have significant proportions of redheads.
 
 
It is interesting to read about red-haired mummies which were found in the northwest of Iran (southern Armenia) in BBC Oxford: http://www.bbc.co.uk/oxford/content/articles/2005/10/04/saltman.shtml
So
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1942
Post Options Post Options   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 14:01
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

According to almost all English sources, like "The Anglo Saxon chronicle" that you mentioned http://omacl.org/Anglo/part1.html : "The first inhabitants were the Britons, who came from Armenia, and first peopled Britain southward.  Then happened it, that the Picts came south from Scythia, with long ships, not many; and, landing first in the northern part of Ireland."
 
Numerous evidences prove this fact, especially linguistic evidences, there are even several genetic evidences which confirm it, for example the famous Greek historian Herodotus (ca. 450B.C.) says about Scythians ("Scothes" in Greek, the same word in Latin was used for Scots): "They are a large and powerful nation: they have all blue eyes, and red hair" (Herodotus, Histories 4. 108)


Cyrus, good man, you read a lot of primary sources but unfortunately you do not seem to care much for the latest studies done by professional historians, who with all due respect are far more qualified than you to assess the source material.

Reading primary sources is rather dangerous you see unless you are an educated historian schooled in source criticism. What you just wrote here is a perfect example. The Anglo-Saxon chronicle is relating an origin myth, a very common construct in medieval European history writing. The 12th century historian Geoffrey of Monmouth for example explained how the British kings descended from the Trojans, the Anglo-Saxon chronicle is doing the same in relating the origin of the Britons. Both are pure fantasy, as the historians of that time did not have the tools necessary to trace the origin of the Britons nor their kings as far back as they claim to, but that wasn't the point either, the point was to invent a glorious background for these people.

I see you use Herodotus to verify the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, but this is just one fallacy built upon another. The ancient history works by Herodotus and co. were the only sources available to medieval European authors, and so you find their works build on the writings of classical Greece and Rome. It is almost guaranteed that the author of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle read Herodotus. This does not mean he is correct, it just means he copied information from an earlier source and misinterpreted it by trying to make it fit in his own context. To put it plainly; the author of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle wrote a lot of rubbish, for he did not know anything about the Scythians other than what he had read in classical sources. Heodotus and the classical authros too had to write history based on few and dubious sources, so they also wrote a lot of rubbish,  and putting rubbish and rubbish together does not make truth.

If you truly wish to study the ancient Britons I advice you to lay off the primary sources until you have read a few of the books that are used for university courses on this topic. F.ex. "The Ancient Celts" by Barry Cunliffe, or "The Britons" by Christopher Snyder in the Peoples of Europe-series. That is, if you truly wish to learn about the real Britons and not just invent theories to connect them with Iranians.
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3963
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 14:09

About linguistics, there is a very long discussion about Iranian and Germanic languages in this thread: Is Germanic a subgroup of the Iranian languages?, one of the main things that we discussed so much there was about the sound shifts in these languages, it is said there were k->g & s->h in the Iranian languages but k->h & p->f in the Germanic languages and I said several times that the second ones also occured in the Iranian languages and gave several examples.

As you read here: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=pork&searchmode=none from proto-IE *porko, there are Latin porcus (English Pork comes from this word), Slavix prase (k->s), Old English fearh from P.Gmc. *farhaz (p->f & k->h) and Middle Persian pigra (k->g), what is the origin of Pig? http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=pig&searchmode=none O.E. *picg, found in compounds, ultimate origin unknown. !!! 
 
You can read here there is another PIE word for pig: proto-IE *sÅ«k, as you read modern English sow has a Germanic origin (k->h), the Middle Persian word is Hug/Xug (s->h & k->g), what is the origin of Hog?
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1942
Post Options Post Options   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 14:21
Germanic and Iranian languages are related as far as they are both Indo-European, but Germanic is not a subgroup of Iranian, they are separate branches, and most of the similarities you find will therefore be coincidental. This isn't even a discussion among linguists and us amateurs have no business trying to set up our own misbegotten theories.

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cfford/Indoeuropean%20language%20family%20tree.jpg

This is all there is to be said as far as the Indo-European theory goes.


Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3963
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 14:38
Reginmund, You are talking with someone who has a PhD on Iranian history and researched about Scythians more than 10 years and has read hundreds books and articles about them, so I am not really an amateur!
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1942
Post Options Post Options   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 15:13
Good, reading at least one of the two books I suggested should be no problem then.
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3963
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 17:06

What Is the Advantage of reading them? Do they disprove by evidences the historical fact of the migration from Scythia to Britain which has been mentioned in almost all primary sources? I searched in "The Ancient Celts" by Barry Cunliffe for the word "Scythia": Click Here, and found just one unrelated mention in the page 175!

A migration from a land to another land in Europe is not an impossible thing especially when several sources mention it too, but the problem is just that you don't like to believe this fact, of course you easily believe the vice versa, for example some Germanic peoples like Goths migrated to Scythia, didn't they?


Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 16-Feb-2009 at 17:23
Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 407
Post Options Post Options   Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 04:56
Originally posted by beorna

 
Well, Kuhn is for sure a German name, not Anglo-Saxon.
 
I didn't care for English names, but I think one can see if a name has an Anglo-Saxon origin or a Normannic origin. Exept of the Mc's and O's I don't know if there are Celtic names existing, sorry. But I am not sure if an Anglo-Saxon name means that one is 100% Anglo-Saxon.
 
Another fact is that Britons could use Anglo-Saxon names.So in that situation we can't say an Anglo-saxon names stand for an unbroken Anglo-Saxon male lineage.
 
 
 
Thanks again for your further explanation in greater details Clap
 
Oops ... that surname belongs to my world history teacher Mr Kuhn ( back in rural Kansas ).I vividly recall,he said to us .... in German,we pronounce it " Kane Shocked ".
 
So,this means Anglo-Saxon restricts to England or English of supposely Germanic roots ( & their new world colonist kins ) and it doesn't equate to ' German ' in broader sense.
 
I have one question.Then,is there ever a strong kinship between English & Germans these past centuries since the creation of England.
 
My hunch is indigenous Britons account for a good percentage of English population ( exclude Welsh Scotts & Irish ).They're no longer pure bred Britions,rather heavily mixed with non-native Anglo-Saxons Vikings Normans.
 
If redhead & freckles are physical characteristics identify " Celtic roots ".How about child actor Rupert Grint ( of Harry Potter movie series ) who is English looks " Irish " LOL .
 
On final thought,typical English look more similiar to Germans & Scandinavians with slight distinctions.It's those French are ethnically mixed looking Europeans,some even can pass as Italians LOL.
 


Edited by pebbles - 17-Feb-2009 at 05:00
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 552
Post Options Post Options   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 08:10
Originally posted by pebbles

 
Oops ... that surname belongs to my world history teacher Mr Kuhn ( back in rural Kansas ).I vividly recall,he said to us .... in German,we pronounce it " Kane Shocked ".
It is spoken as Koon (like typhoon)
 
Originally posted by pebbles

So,this means Anglo-Saxon restricts to England or English of supposely Germanic roots ( & their new world colonist kins ) and it doesn't equate to ' German ' in broader sense.
Yes, Anglo-Saxon is just a term for Germanic groups in Britain. BTW the British sources usually spoke of Saxons or Angli, the term Anglisaxones is a artificial term. It was once thought that the Iutes settled in Kent and Wight, the Saxons in Sussex, Wessex, Essex, Mddlesex, Surrey and the Angles in Anglia, Northumbria and Mercia. This is no longer to believe especially because we have to deny a Saxon nation. The groups were completely mixed. So a name like Anglia doesn't mean that only Angles lived there but that an Anglian groups was in the leading position.
 
Originally posted by pebbles

I have one question.Then,is there ever a strong kinship between English & Germans these past centuries since the creation of England.
Yes, there was. Especially in the Medieval times. And don't forgetBig smile the royal house of England is of German origin. Both Lizzy and Phil belong to German houses, Saxon-Coburg-Gotha and Battenberg.
 
Originally posted by pebbles

My hunch is indigenous Britons account for a good percentage of English population ( exclude Welsh Scotts & Irish ).They're no longer pure bred Britions,rather heavily mixed with non-native Anglo-Saxons Vikings Normans.
They are lika any other nation, mixed, mixed, mixed.
 
Originally posted by pebbles

If redhead & freckles are physical characteristics identify " Celtic roots ".How about child actor Rupert Grint ( of Harry Potter movie series ) who is English looks " Irish " LOL .
 
On final thought,typical English look more similiar to Germans & Scandinavians with slight distinctions.It's those French are ethnically mixed looking Europeans,some even can pass as Italians LOL.
 
My aunt has ginger hair too. She's no Celt. Usually if dark haird type get kids with blond ones, you get ginger hair kids. So this is a possible explanation. There never was a typical Celtic habitus, especially the ginger haired Irish can't be called typical Celtic, because the original Celts came from the Rhine area.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 11:37
Surnames are irrelevant since it was only well after the Norman conquest that the 'English' whoever they were, acquired surnames. So the names they got given were obviously going to be 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'French' because those were the languages spoken there at the time. If you were a baker in England and acquired a surname there was a pretty good chance it would be 'Baker' even if you were Welsh.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1942
Post Options Post Options   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 11:41
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

What Is the Advantage of reading them? Do they disprove by evidences the historical fact of the migration from Scythia to Britain which has been mentioned in almost all primary sources? I searched in "The Ancient Celts" by Barry Cunliffe for the word "Scythia": Click Here, and found just one unrelated mention in the page 175!


Exactly! Because no modern specialists believe they are related, for good reason.

The advantage of reading them is that you learn who the ancient Britons were.
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 407
Post Options Post Options   Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 13:47
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Surnames are irrelevant since it was only well after the Norman conquest that the 'English' whoever they were, acquired surnames. So the names they got given were obviously going to be 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'French' because those were the languages spoken there at the time. If you were a baker in England and acquired a surname there was a pretty good chance it would be 'Baker' even if you were Welsh.
 
 
In this case,is it fair to say indigenous Britons of England ( A division of the United Kingdom, the southern part of the island of Great Britain. Originally settled by Celtic peoples, it was subsequently conquered by Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, and Normans ) lost own Celtic-ethnic identity as a conquered people & unwittingly assumed the  " Anglo-Saxon " Germanic origin superficially.
 
 


Edited by pebbles - 17-Feb-2009 at 14:55
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 10>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.